VOlUME 05 ISSUE 04 APRIL 2022
1Nguyen Vy Ngoc,2Nguyen Thi Hanh Phuc
1Dai Nam University, Vietnam
2Thai Nguyen University, Vietnam
Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
The current research paper was carried out at a university in Hanoi, Vietnam in order to investigate the effects of misconceptions between Vietnamese syntactic concepts and those in English on writing performance. The design of the study was “qualitative case study”. The case was selected from 116 students who have finished their first year studying in different disciplines such as Business Administration, International Business, Banking and Tourism Administration … The scope of the study was the misconceptions on syntactic terms in three categories; verb-related, noun-related and adverbial related errors. The findings were that the verb-related errors such as wrong tenses, infinitive phrases and omission of ‘be’ are frequently found; 31.9%, 30.9% and 29.3% respectively. The errors related to determiners and conjuncts make up 47.8% each. Most of the participants do not understand the meaning of syntactic terms in English.
The findings also reveal that some students had poor understanding of the terms just because they did not understand the terms even in Vietnamese language. They are unaware of the importance of the comprehension of the terms in writing English composition. Many of them use the terms by their ‘hunch or afflatus’. Some said that their teachers’ explanations of Vietnamese syntactic terms were varied and difficult to generalize.
KEYWORDS:Syntactic terms, errors in writing, verb-related errors, noun-related errors, adverbial related errors
REFERENCES
1) Al-Khresheh, M.H. (2016). A Review Study of Error Analysis Theory. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 2(8), 49-59
2) Ban, D.Q. (2004). Ngữ pháp Việt Nam – Phần câu. Nhà xuất bản Đại học Sư phạm. Hà Nội.
3) Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: the case of systematicity, Language Learning 7(33), 1-17.
4) Brinton, L.J. & Brinton, D.M. (2010). The Linguistic Structure of Modern English. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam / Philadelphia
5) Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles of language and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
6) Chittima, K. (2013). Writing Error: A Review of Interlingual and Intralingual Interference in EFL Context. English Language Teaching. 6(7), 9-18.
7) Comrie, B. (1985a).Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8) Corder, S. P. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9) Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University.
10) Ellis, R. (1995b). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching, TESOL Quarterly 29(1), 87-105.
11) Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12) Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13) Fauziati, E. (2009). Readings on Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teacher and Teacher Researcher. Surakarta: Era Pustaka Utama.
14) Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.T. (2003). Educational research (7th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
15) Greenbaum, S. & Nelson, G. (2013). An Introduction to English Grammar. 3rd ed. Routledge.
16) Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
17) Huyen, N.T., 2020. Common grammartical errors in English writing - A case study with secondyear students of information technology at HAUI. Can Tho University Journal of Science. 12(1): 37-44.
18) James, C. (1999). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis.
19) London: Longman.
20) James, C. (2001). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 1(3), 266-268
21) Lim. M, H. (2010). Interference in the acquisition of the present perfect continuous: implications of a grammaticality judgment test. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal. 3(5), 24-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874913501003010024
22) Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23) Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nded.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24) Murtiana, R. (2019). An Analysis of Interlingual and Intralingual Errors in EFL learners’ composition. JURNAL EDUCATIVE: Journal of Educational Studies, 4(12), 1-13
25) Nhut, N.M. (2020). Interlingual errors in Vietnamese English- a Case study on Tra Vinh University students. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research. 8(4), 45-58
26) Normah, B.O. (2015). Understanding EFL Students’ Errors in Writing. Journal of Education and Practice. 6(32), 99-106.
27) Phien, H.T. (2008). Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt – Câu. Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội
28) Phuket, P.R & Othman, N. (2015). Understanding EFL Students’ Errors in Writing. Journal of Education and Practice. 6(32), 99-106.
29) Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30) Quirk, R & Greenbaum, S. (1892). A University Grammar of English. Longman
31) Quynh, N.H. (2001). Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt. Nhà xuất bản Từ điển bách khoa. Hà Nội
32) Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to Error Analysis. English Language Teaching Journal. 11(25), 204-219.
33) Richard, J, C. (1974). Error Analysis: Perspective on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman Group Ltd.
34) Rivers, M. W. (1968). Teaching foreign language skill. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
35) Roberts, B.N. (2011). Analysing sentences- An introduction to English Syntax (3rd ed.). Longman
36) Robert, L. & Hatcho, Y. (2018). The First Language’s Impact on L2: Investigating Intralingual and
37) Interlingual Errors. English Language Teaching, 11(11), 115-121
38) Ruba, A.M. (2017). Syntactic Errors Arab Learners Commit in Writing. Journal of Language, Linguistics and Literature. 3(1), 1-7.
39) Sawalmeh, M.H. (2013). Error Analysis of Written English Essays: The case of Students of the Preparatory Year Program in Saudi Arabia. English for Specific Purposes, 40(14), 132-143
40) Scovel, T. (2001). Learning New Languages: A guide to second language acquisition. Massachsetts: Heinle & Heinle.
41) Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman.
42) Smith, J. (2015). What students say about linguistics: Why study syntax? Retrieved December
a. 10th, 2015, from https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/paper/3097
43) Smith, K. et al. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science. 323(5910), 122–124
44) Taber, K.S. (2014). Alternative conceptions/frameworks/misconceptions. In Encyclopedia of Science Education Vol. A. Springer, New York, 37–41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6165-0_88-2
45) Tallerman, M. (2011). Understanding Syntax. 3rd ed. Hodder Education
46) Trask, R.L. (1993). A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. Routledge
47) Valin, J. (2001). An introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48) Wee, R., Sim, J. & Jusoff, K. (2009). Verb-form errors in EAP writing. Educational Research and Review, 5(1), 16-23.
49) Yin, R. (2003a). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50) Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. London